Mystery-Woman Miers (Has Supported ICC, Gay Adoptions, Tax Hikes; Some "Conservative," Huh...?)

World Net Daily ^ | 10/03/2005 | Joseph Farrah

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I posted the whole quote from Newsmax.

Provide the link. (Should be simple enough, IF true, as it was only within the last half-hour or so.) Let's see it; your word, alone, isn't good enough, at this point.

when in actuality she signed off for those issues to be debated within the ABA.

This makes three consecutive times you've stated this, without offering even so much as the merest scintilla of evidence in support. The fact that you've refused said request, three times running, is reliable enough evidence that -- in all naked honesty -- you cannot do so. Period, end of sentence, full stop.

you can't stand debate

I love debating with anyone who can bring more to the table, ultimately, than merely a surfeit of self-heated gas and pointless arm-waving. Let me know if and/or when your dad wakes up, and let him know I'm interested.

[Dane]

Provide the link.

See reply #78.

[George W. Bush]

Yeah Leonard Leo a biggie at the Federalist Society, who is helping her through the confirmation process is so unacceptable.

As I posted earlier today, I'm still scratching my head over that one. Apparently, the Federalist Society no longer scares small children when they rampage through the streets in their usual right-wing frenzy. Anyway, Harriet seems less frightened of The Bad People (aka the Federalist Society) than she was previously.

As far as a Federalist bigwig being willing to coach her, I would say I can't think of a legal group in the country who would turn down the opportunity to coach any nominee. ACLU, NAACP, PAW, ... well, I think you couldn't find one that wouldn't leap to 'help' Harriet prep for the hearings.

I think the Leo assistance to Miers indicates very little more than savvy strategy by the WH, hoping to 'innoculate' Harriet against conservative reaction to her.

Naturally, a proper nominee doesn't need coaching. Nor is it necessary to trumpet a particular organization's last minute tutorials to assist her cramming for the test (hearings). For instance, I don't recall the ACLU bragging up any coaching of Buzzi Ginsberg during confirmation. I assume Buzzi didn't actually need much prep. And we see the same kind of qualification and preparedness as what we'd attribute to Ginsberg in three outstanding candidates: Brown, Jones, Owens.

[counterpunch]

The Link is in my reply #27.

All I saw was a link to another thread on FreeRepublic that had no link to the original article.

You know, all of this inbreeding leads to mental retardation.

[Dane]

Naturally, a proper nominee doesn't need coaching.

Guess who helped prep John Roberts for his Senate appearnace.

That's right it was Harriet Miers.

[rollo tomasi]

Since Bush already fooled me once I am not about to be fooled twice.

These "safe" picks are always a recipe for disaster. I find it interesting that Hamilton, over 200 years ago warned of the "safe pick of compromise". Maybe Bush should read this:

"The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body.

...I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.

in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight." --Hamilton, from parts of the Federalist Papers

Hamilton is politely saying FU to compromise. Bush, with the approval of Democrats (The so called "list") picked Miers who was on the "list of surrendering to compromise".

Now you can say Miers is Bush's #1 all along. Quit frankly I find this absurd due to the fact that Bush had to go on bended knee in front of Democrats to get approval to even choose Miers. Plus there were candidates a lot stronger and more established. This attempt to paint Miers as #1 is a joke in and of itself.

EZ, advice and consent comes after you pick. You play hardball with those in your own party to over ride anything Democrats throw at you.

ez, is Bush such a sorry leader that he can't even get his own Party members to go to war with him? Democrats are not in charge last time I looked.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

All I saw was a link to another thread on FreeRepublic that had no link to the original article.

Agreed.

Stick a fork in him. He's fondue. :)

[Dane]

Here you go blowhard.

Newsmax link

[johnny7]

Some would say on the Miers issue... he's more 'Tessio'.

[rollo tomasi]

"Yeah Leonard Leo a biggie at the Federalist Society, who is helping her through the confirmation process is so unacceptable."

Quickly, name the co-founder of the Federalist Society who went to the mat and suggested Souter over Edith. Promised Souter was a great conservative, good legal mind and all that.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Still waiting for that link you were supposed to provide way, waaaaaaaaaaay back from Posting #65. How's that one coming along, anyway...?

[Dane]

Stick a fork in him. He's fondue. :)

See reply #88.

And shove your fondue forks,

where the sun don't shine.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

Yesterday I moved from I'll-wait-until-the-hearings to NO WAY on Harriet Miers.

Me too.

End the insanity now.

[AmericaUnited]

Farah has been debunked in spades. Anyone who has read the debunking info and yet continues to push these lies are themselves DAMN LIARS and have have zero credibilty. It really is that simple.

[TomGuy]

Now, now, now....she's 'accomplished'.

Don't forget.

She was the first woman to head the Texas Bar association.

[/end of facetious remarks]

[Calpernia]

Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.

Under the heading Family Law and subheading Adoption, the document states: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child."

Also included, under the heading International Law and Practice, is a recommendation for "the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."

---

I went to the link:

This is what I see:

FAMILY LAW

4. Adoption
Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. Sections of Family Law and Individual Rights and Responsibilities.

Contacts:
Frank P. Cervone, Support Center for Child Advocacy, 801 Arch Street, Suite 608, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215/925-1913, Fax: 215/925-4756;

Jeffrey G. Gibson, Goldstein, Gellman, Melbostad, Gibson & Harris, 100 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94102, Phone: 415/621-5600, Fax: 415/621-0656;

Glenda Sharp, American Bar Association, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: 312/988-5584, Fax: 312/988-6800, sharpg@staff.abanet.org;

Penny Wakefield, ABA, Washington Office, 740 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-1009, Phone: 202/662-1029, Fax: 202/662-1031, wakefield@staff.abanet.org.

---

Where is Harriet Miers name?

---

Along with the proposed agenda was a memo, dated Oct. 28, 1998, that explained the document.

"The Committee urges all Delegates to review this list for items of interest to their constituencies, and to act as the catalyst for further contact and action so that each entity will have the earliest opportunity for consideration and input."

The memo is signed by Miers as chairwoman of the Select Committee of the House.

---

I didn't see this memo. Can you point me to it?

[George W. Bush]

Guess who helped prep John Roberts for his Senate appearnace. That's right it was Harriet Miers.

You say this as though it's not common knowledge. First off, that was one of her primary jobs, following in Gonzales' tenure at the position.

But the idea that Harriet prepped Roberts in any meaningful way is just silly.

On one hand, we have the entire legal profession saying she's never done or written anything significant, having atended a second-rate law school.

OTOH, we have Roberts widely acclaimed as one of the most brilliant legal scholars, top appellate lawyer for a top firm and from the top legal school in the country.

I don't think Harriet did much coaching of Roberts.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

"Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble ... access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance."

Pay close attention, now, Winky. I'm about to provide you with some of that "elitist" book larn'in you evidently missed out on, back in grammar school.

Those plainly visible punctuation marks I very helpfully enlarged, for your benefit...? (You're welcome.) That's our old punctuation pal, Mr. Ellipsis.

Follow the link I've provided... and: you'll learn something (doubtless) new and exciting, re: what a normal, intelligent adult immediately deduces, whenever seeing That Swell Guy, Mr. Ellipsis, showing up in a reported quote.

Come back with the right attitude afterwards, and there may even be a trip down to the DQ for you, later this afternoon.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Farah has been debunked in spades.

Same simple, straightforward challenge applies for you as it has the other luckless contestant in this thread, thus far: SHOW it.

This should be such a ridiculously easy task, really.

Provided said "debunking" actually HAS taken place, I mean.

That would be the only real drawback, otherwise.

[NavVet]

I agree, there shouldn't be any pressure to avoid a vote. I listen to Rush everyday and he hasn't suggested there shouldn't be a vote, just that this mess could have been avoided.

I do think if Frist knows the votes won't be there, he should tell the White House so they could devise some face saving strategy. Sempre Fi.